Filetype PDF | Posted on 22 Sep 2022 | 3 years ago
Authentication
digital resources
108x Filetype PDF File size 0.33 MB Source: people.umass.edu
Causative Derivations in Hindi
Rajesh Bhatt and David Embick
University of Texas at Austin and University of Pennsylvania
Draft of Fall, 2003; Please do not cite/distribute without consulting authors
Contents
1 Introduction 2
1.1 BasicPatterns..................................... 2
1.2 Assumptions ..................................... 2
1.2.1 ArchitecturalAssumptions.......................... 3
1.2.2 SemanticAssumptions............................ 5
1.3 Outline ........................................ 8
2 HindiVerbal Structures and Root Types 8
3 Transitivity Alternations and Directionality 14
3.1 TransitivityAlternationsinHindi........................... 17
3.2 TheStructuresintheAlternations .......................... 21
3.3 Differences between the AA- and NULL-classes? .................. 24
3.4 Basicness and Directionality ............................. 26
4 Further Causative Derivations: Unergatives and the ‘Ingestive’ Verbs 31
4.1 Unergatives...................................... 31
4.2 Ingesto-Reflexives................................... 37
5 TheIndirectCausative 42
6 Allomorphy of Causative Heads 47
6.1 Realization of v HeadsinHindi ........................... 47
6.2 Optionality in Causatives between -aa and -v-aa ................... 51
6.3 Realization of v inKashmiri ............................. 52
7 Appendix: Verbs in the Transitivity Alternations 55
1
1 Introduction
1.1 Basic Patterns
The first set of causative derivations that we will examine are of the type often referred to as
causative/inchoative alternations, or, more generally, a type that shows a transitivity alternation.
Aninitial class of verbs showing a transitivity alternations is illustrated in (1). In this class of verbs,
there is no overt causative affix in the transitive form (b). The phonological form of the intransitive
is derived from the phonological form of the transitive via a process which we will refer to as vowel
simplification:
(1) a. Jaayzaad b˜at rahii hai.
.
property divide PROG-FEMbe-PRES
‘The property is dividing.’
b. Ram-ne jaayzad b˜a˜at dii.
.
Ram-ERGproperty divide GIVE-PERF
‘Ramdivided the property.’
Because this class involves no overt affixes in either member of the alternation, we will refer to it as
the NULL-class.
Asecond class involves an overt affix, -aa, which appears in the transitive member of pairs in
which the intransitive shows no overt affix. The transitive form in such pairs also undergoes the
process of vowel simplification mentioned in reference to the NULL-class above; these facts are
illustrated in (2):
(2) a. Makaan jal raha hai.
house.M burn PROG.Mbe.Prs
‘The house is burning.’
b. Dakaito-ne˜ makaan jalaa diyaa.
.
bandits-ERG house.M burn GIVE-PERF.M
‘Bandits burned the house.’
Verbs alternating in this way belong to what we will call the AA-class. In addition to appearing
in the transitive forms of verbs in the AA-class, the causative exponent -aa appears in some fur-
ther contexts, including (1) transitives of what appear to be unergatives, and (2) ditransitives of a
particular class of transitives. These latter two cases are examined in detail in x3.
In addition to the NULL-and AA-classes derivation, which involve what is often called ‘lexical’
causativization, there are causatives with the affix -vaa, which have an indirect causative interpre-
tation. The -vaa causative is illustrated in (3):
(3) zamiindaar-ne (dakaito-se)˜ makaan jal-vaa diyaa.
.
landlord-Erg bandits-Instr house.M burn-CAUS GIVE-PERF.M
‘The landlord had the house burned (by the dacoits).’
Hereorbelow,terminological note concerning ‘transitive’, ‘causative’, and so on.....
1.2 Assumptions
The discussion of causative derivations below is framed against a set of background assumptions
that we now present.
2
1.2.1 Architectural Assumptions
Our analysis of these verbal alternations in Hindi will be framed against a set of background as-
sumptions fromtheframeworkofDistributed Morphology (HalleandMarantz1993andsubsequent
work). Although specific assumptions from this framework asthe discussion of the Hindi facts takes
place below, we clarify now some of the basic architectural premises of this framework.
Aprimary architectural premise of Distributed Morphology is that word formation is syntactic;
this assumption is one that this approach shares with other syntactic treatments of morphology,
such as Baker (1988) and Pesetsky (1995). In the default case, morphological structure is simply
syntactic structure– that is, nodes arranged in a hiearchical structure. Further operations relevant for
wordformationoccurafterspellout, i.e. atPF.WeusethetermMorphology torefertoasequence of
operations that occur on the PF branch. In this way, morphology is a set of operations that interpret
the output of the syntactic derivation. The architecture of this approach is presented in (4):
(4) TheGrammar
Syntactic Derivation
(Spell Out)
Morphology
PF LF
Theapproach assumes further that there is no Lexicon, that is, no non-syntactic system for building
complex objects out of primitives. Rather, all derivation of complex objects occurs in the syntactic
derivation.1
Thereare twotypes of terminal nodes in the syntactic derivation. One type, the Roots, are mem-
bers of the open-class or ‘lexical’ vocabulary of the language. These are represented as e.g. pDOG.
Theother, non-Root, terminals are functional heads. In the syntactic derivation, the functional heads
are abstract morphemes; that is, they consist of abstract features like [past] for past tense, or [pl]
for Plural. After the syntactic derivation, phonological content is added to these abstract functional
heads in a process that is called vocabulary insertion. Vocabulary insertion is a process that adds
phonological exponents– including -Ø– to abstract morphemes. Abstract features and phonological
exponents are paired in vocabulary items. For example, English contains the vocabulary item in (5),
which adds the phonological exponent /-z/ to the node #[pl]], i.e. to the # ‘Number’ head with the
feature [pl] for ‘Plural’:
(5) #[pl] $ /-z/
Vocabulary items like (5) are rules, whose function is to add phonological exponents to abstract
morphemes.
Moving on to issues that are important for our study of causative derivations, the grammatical
architecture that we have outlined above motivates a particular approach to verbal alternations of
the type we discuss in this paper. There is no Lexicon in which the derivation of e.g. a transitive
verb from an underlyingly intransitive verb– or the derivation of an intransitive from a transitive–
1There is also a role for some operations in the PF component that create complex objects; as these are not relevant to
the present discussion, we will not examine them here.
3
can take place. This point has two important consequences for studies like that to be undertaken
here. The first point is that what there is to say about verbal alternations is syntactic– that is, on
the features and structures that appear in a particular verbal alternant. In this way, the approach
that we develop is related to the research program in argument structure associated with Hale and
Keyser (1993) and subsequent work, in which argument structure is syntactic. The second point
is that there is no possiblity of stating a ‘lexical’ vs. ‘syntactic’ dichotomy in trying to explain
the properties of causative derivations. That is, it is not possible to treat transitivity alternations as
occurring in the Lexicon, while (Indirect) causatives are treated in the syntax. In many accounts, the
AA-andNULL-class of alternating verbs are simply not treated together with the -vaa causatives.
The reason for this is that in Lexicalist approaches, the AA- and NULL-classes would be treated
as lexically derived alternations involving merely (de-)transitivization, while the -vaa causative is
taken to be syntactic. In a theory that has no Lexicon, this sort of distinction clearly cannot be
maintained.2 We demonstrate below that the exclusively syntactic approach to causativization is
superior to a two-module or Lexicalist alternative.
Whilethe architecture we assume has no Lexicon in the sense of Lexicalist approaches to gram-
mar, there are nevertheless components of the grammar which list unpredictable information. For
instance, the Vocabulary, which contains the vocabulary items, is one such list. The grammar of
an individual language also contains a list of the Roots and the abstract morphemes that serve as
syntactic terminals in that language. A further list, and one that is important for our concerns in
this paper is a list which is called the Encyclopedia.3 The information listed in the Encyclopedia
concerns the idiosyncratic or non-compositional meanings of objects, whether the objects in ques-
tion are simplex (i.e. Roots), or syntactically complex (i.e. idioms). So, for instance, the fact that
the Root pDOG in English has something to do with canines and not something else is a matter
of Encyclopedic knowledge. Similarly, the fact that the syntactically created object kick the bucket
has potentially a special meaning that is something similar to ‘die’ is listed in the Encyclopedia.
Because this list refers to objects that have been composed in the course of the syntactic derivation,
it is accessed at a post-syntactic stage, i.e. an interpretive stage subsuquent to the stages of the
grammar represented in (4).
Afurther aspect of Encyclopedic knowledge concerns whether or not a Root denotes an eventu-
ality that is inherently associated with an Agent or not; for this point, see in particular Marantz (1997),
which builds on Chomsky (1970). To take specific example which we discuss in detail in x2, we
take it that one thing that speakers know about Roots like pCUT is that the eventuality denoted by
this Root involves an Agent, whereas with e.g. pGROW this is not the case. This type of Encyclo-
pedic knowledge about Roots is independent of the grammatical environments in which these Roots
occur. Thus, for instance, pGROW may be interpreted agentively if it is merged syntactically with
the agent-licensing syntactic head v[AG]: John grows apples. The crucial point is that there are two
notions of agentivity here, Encyclopedic and grammatical, and these must be kept distinct from one
another.
By making this distinction between Encyclopedic and grammatical notions of Agentivity, our
approach toverbal structures departs from a commonly held view of the relationship between syntax
and argument structure. This alternative view is the view of Projectionism, which holds that the
initial syntactic represenation of a verb is derivative of that verb’s lexical semantics. The syntactic
projection of this verb is derivative of rules that effect a mapping between the lexical semantics
and the syntax, referred to as (lexical) mapping rules. One of the principal goals of lexical mapping
2See Embick (1996) and Miyagawa (1998) for some related discussion in the domain of the relationship between
transitivization and causativization.
3See, for instance, Marantz (1997).
4
no reviews yet
Please Login to review.
